Civil Disobedience Planned- Keystone XL

hamiltongardener(CAN 6a)January 23, 2013

Make your plans now to help the protest next month.

It bills itself as "America's largest and most influential grassroots organization." And the 121-year-old Sierra Club, founded by the famed 19th-century California conservationist John Muir, is also the world's prototype environmental group, born out of battles to save the colossal Pacific Coast redwoods and create America's earliest national parks.
Now, in what's being described as an "unprecedented" moment in an organizational history that encompasses landmark fights to protect the Grand Canyon, block nuclear power projects and preserve millions of hectares of pristine wilderness, the Sierra Club has formally decided to engage in its first-ever act of civil disobedience in a bid to stop one of Canada's biggest economic development projects: TransCanada Corp.'s construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to pump oil-sands petroleum from Alberta to refineries in the U.S.

--snip--

Obama, who will make the ultimate decision on the fate of the pipeline after Nebraska's governor, Dave Heineman, announced his state's approval this week of a new route for Keystone XL, is the chief target of the planned Sierra Club protest next month.
Details of the action are being closely guarded to preserve the "element of surprise," the club's national spokesperson, Maggie Kao, told Postmedia News. She would only say the planned act of civil disobedience, to be organized in collaboration with the U.S.-based climate-change action group 350.org, would take place in February.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sierra Club protests planned

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

Are liberals the only ones to stage these civil disobedience thingies? Seems when a conservative does this its evil?

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 5:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
steve2416

ff, have conservatives ever done civil disobedience to protect the environment?

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 6:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
PRO
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

I have Steve. Have you?

I even protest this president's extrajudicial killings. Do you?

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 10:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

this president's extrajudicial killings

Do you want to send sonny boy in to capture Al Qaida in Mali?
And where do you suggest that we jail and hold trials for the detainees? Who would sit on the jury ? Would these enemy combatants and foreign terrorists being given the Rights that US citizens have to a fair trial?

Never mind, I know,,,you are just being your sarcastic self.

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 1:26AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
PRO
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

Gitmo would be a nice facility!...Or has he closed that?

Look up extrajudicial killings. You obviously think it means, justice.

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 5:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fancifowl(5Pa)

we dont have the need to cuff em, stuff em and try em, we zap em from above with drones. Much more efficient and a just vreward.

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 8:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hamiltongardener(CAN 6a)

He's got a tough choice to make.

But in the end, I have a feeling he will approve the pipeline. Money talks. And America is mainlining oil like any other addicted country.

President Barack Obama is in a pipeline pickle.

The president�s call for action on climate change during Monday�s inaugural speech puts his upcoming decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline in an even brighter spotlight � pitting his pledge to tackle global warming against his stated commitment to an "all of the above" energy strategy.

Republicans and industry groups will unleash a torrent of attacks on the president if he rejects the pipeline. And Keystone has strong support from some Democrats in Congress near the pipeline�s proposed route, including Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Jon Tester of Montana.

Some Republicans are already laying the groundwork to use a rejection of Keystone to question the president�s support for energy and jobs.

"The president needs to decide if his allegiance is to the environmental extremists or hard-working American families," Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso said Tuesday.

But greens warn that approval of the pipeline will wreak havoc on the climate, betraying the expectations the president raised anew Monday.

"One can�t promise a full-on attack on the climate crisis and then approve the project that climate scientists have singled out as a particular disaster," said Bill McKibben, founder of the group 350.org, which organized massive White House sit-ins against Keystone in 2011. "It wouldn�t make sense, and it would undercut all his powerful words."

Here is a link that might be useful: Presidential pickle

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 10:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
WxDano(5b-2a-6/7)

He's got a tough choice to make...But in the end, I have a feeling he will approve the pipeline. Money talks. And America is mainlining oil like any other addicted country.

IMHO he put off approval until after the election. You don't buy land and start building a pipeline across two states unless you know you'll get approval.

His staffer also said today that they aren't going to consider a carbon tax.

And the Republicants keep calling him a "socialist"...maybe to make the world laugh?

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 11:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chisue

May I ask why the oil can't be refined in Canada?

Is it safer to transport oil or gasoline in tank cars or trucks? (As opposed to pipelines.)

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 10:11AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

The Keystone XL is just another pipeline from Canada but in this case, it takes the oil sludge THROUGH the US rather than TO the US.

That is the other problem many people have with it, especially those of us in the Midwest where much of our gasoline is refined from this Canadian oil sludge. This stuff has already has been coming here as fast as they can send it through pipelines and by rail. Our concern is that the Keystone XL will actually make our gasoline prices go UP when the Canadian tar sands reach the international market via that pipe.

So we here in the MidWest will take your Canadian tar sand sludge until we transition off oil, but why should we build a pipeline that will ONLY benefit other countries and private international oil interests, especially when it will hurt our economy?

I'd say NO to the Keystone XL, for environmental and economic reasons.
The President is in a pickle on this and I am sure he knows that. He needs more help than that from the Sierra Club though. People have to read up on the KXL and understand at least a few things about how it is mined, transported and refined before they jump to any conclusions. There also needs to be an understanding of how it will impact the supply and price of oil in our country, and particularly in the MidWest.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 10:40AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
WxDano(5b-2a-6/7)

The gas prices may go up there because tarsands will take up refining capacity.

And remember - more than 1/3 of the capacity is already contracted to go to foreign sources.

That's right: they've got foreign contracts ready to go once the pipeline is completed. The only pickle BHO is in is how long after election before he approves. He's put it off until March...

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 11:01AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

I wonder if they power companies that have to supply the energy to keep the stuff warm and flowing will be putting in coal fired plants.

Wouldn't it be cool if Obama insisted they use solar and wind power to pump the tar? Subsidize the new energy economy on the backs of the old? People's heads would ahsplode!

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 11:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I would think that the people of Alberta would love to see a refinery or two in their Province. It means jobs and darn good ones to boot. As far as I know the oil companies decide where to build refineries and I'm sure that locations close to shipping ports are more attractive to them than smack dab in the middle of the continent!

Actually the economy of Alberta is plummeting, they have incurred huge deficits by counting on the exploitation of their "natural resources" to finance huge spending.

Exports are way down as is the price of oil sands crude. I wonder how many Americans realize how much their dependency on foreign oil has dropped in the last two years largely as a result of a huge growth in fracking.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 12:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Exports are way down as is the price of oil sands crude. I wonder how many Americans realize how much their dependency on foreign oil has dropped in the last two years largely as a result of a huge growth in fracking.

You mean fracking mainly for natural gas? The tar sands operation is another issue although it is related in terms of energy costs.

"Foreign oil" mainly comes from Canada any more. That's better than other sources from a political standpoint, but that is some low quality crude. It is really gunk that is harder to refine.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 1:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

No I mean fracking for oil. Alberta's revenues are plummeting due to the lowered price of oil sands crud.

edited to add link

Here is a link that might be useful: Fracking for Oil

This post was edited by chase on Fri, Jan 25, 13 at 13:16

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 1:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

I am sorry, your statement about fracking is correct.
That process is extracting gas and oil in Canada and in the US from shale deep below the surface.
I thought we were discussing the Alberta tar sand oil and tar sands oil which I thought was mostly from strip mining. Am I correct with that assumption?
It seems like the US has plenty of oil and gas coming from fracking now in our country (North Dakota, Montana and in other States) so perhaps that will be another reason to vote NO on KXL. It will eventually compete with our own oil production.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 2:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Yes the tar sands are all about strip mining :(

My point is that you folk are quickly becoming independent of our oil. Is that good for you? I'm not so sure. If I was an American I would rather see Canada destroy it's environment in the hunt for oil than do the same to my own lands.

As a Canadian I wish you the best of luck in your fracking endeavors because anything that helps shut down the tar sands works for me.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 2:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

The strip mined area looks brutal. The Sierra Club has a video about the strip mining in Alberta that should be disturbing to Canadians, environmentalists, and people with common sense.

As far as fracking, I am open to the idea if we have no alternative to reliance on fossil fuel and nuclear energy and, of course, subject to limitations for safety and environmental impact.

I also agree with your comment that Americans do not understand how much our oil price has gone down because of fracking and because of the tar sands oil. There are even a few like Bill V. who believed that the lower price of gasoline leading up to the Nov. election was due to a vast Left Wing conspiracy.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 3:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

All that oil from fracking in North Dakota will be going through the same Keystone Pipeline.

All so we can be energy independent resulting in lower prices for the consumer.

Yup yup.

This post was edited by david52 on Fri, Jan 25, 13 at 15:19

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 3:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chisue

Maybe Alberta and North Dakota can fill those pits -- and eventual sink holes? -- with the dead batteries from our new electric cars.

Thanks for the education about who is going to benefit from this environmentally awful pipeline 'deal'.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 3:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
WxDano(5b-2a-6/7)

My point is that you folk are quickly becoming independent of our oil.

These fracking rigs have a short lifespan. "Independence" is a mendacious marketing term.

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 4:09PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Nuts
More odd topic than hot Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Ji...
labrea_gw
France warns Russia
France Warns Russia And Its Allies Not To Advance On...
momj47
The Universe #2
Just starting up a second thread with mom47's last...
vgkg
Servants of God Arrested 2015
It's early still in the year but time to post some...
labrea_gw
What goes around ...
.....comes around "It wasn't supposed to be like...
ohiomom
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™